This is an indictment against the defendant for polygamy. There was a verdict for the Commonwealth, and the case is here on the defendant’s exceptions. The person alleged to be the lawful wife of the defendant was called ás a witness against him and without the consent and against the objection of.the defendant was allowed to testify to material facts tending to prove his guilt. The only question is whether she should have been allowed to so testify without his consent. At common law a married woman could not testify in such a case against her husband. Kelly v. Drew, 12 Allen, 107. But by various statutes which were consolidated in Gen. Sts. c. 131, §§13, 14, 15, 16, the common law was greatly changed. It was changed still more by St. 1870, c. 393, which was substantially re-enacted in Pub. Sts. c. 169, §§ 18 et seq., and in R. L. c. 175, §§ 20 et seq. It is now provided that “ Any person of sufficient understanding, although a party, may testify in any proceeding, civil or criminal, in court, or before a person who has authority to receive evidence, except as follows: First, Neither husband nor wife shall testify as to private conversations with each other. Second, Neither husband nor wife shall be compelled to testify in the trial of an indictment, complaint or other criminal proceeding against the other.” R. L. c. 175, § 20. The effect, of
Exceptions overruled.